The most important word in debating is because.

Whatever point you make in a debate, substantiate it by finishing your phrase using because, because
only then your points become clear and gain depth. And if your arguments have more depth, than the
ones your opponent has, you are likely to win a debate (when judged by an unbiased adjudicator).

A nice way to do this is using the SEXI-scheme: State, EXplain, Illustrate

State
Use clear wording in one short phrase, stating the point you are trying to make. Be aware that you may
have more/different knowledge than your audience/opponent, so use simple words. Also make sure to
start your argument with the statement, because by doing this, the other person is prepared to follow
your explanation.

Making an argument is not about surprising the other person, it is about taking her by the hand and
guiding her step by step from her point of view to yours.

The death-penalty should be abolished.

EXplain
Here the word because comes into play. Sadly many people don't debate in their daily lives on this level,
but stick to only stating claims instead. To be a good debater, use reason and common sense to explain
why your point is valid. Use small steps in your explanation to make your argument watertight and to
leave little space to ambiguity or the lack of clarity. Mention even things that may seem obvious; more
often than you think, they are not as obvious to other people as they are to you.

The death-penalty should be abolished, because the state should never kill innocent people if it can be
avoided.
As a trial is always trying to reconstruct what happened, using evidence and testimonials, there is always
(even a very small) chance that they got it wrong. By taking an accused person's life you take away their
chance and the one of their family, of benefiting from any new evidence which may prove their
innocence in the future. This is why the state should always take the softest measure possible (life-
sentence), because by doing this, it keeps the public safe but recognizes at the same time the right to life
of the innocently accused.
As trials are made in the present but the crimes happened in the past, there will never be a 100%
certainty and the state should therefore never become the murderer of a possibly innocent life.

Illustrate
Many times the explanation may be very logical but it tends to abstract the topic. This is good, because
especially moral and ethical questions always rely on bigger, complex principles. To give the other
person the opportunity to confirm from their real-life experience the principles you just introduced, you
should use examples to illustrate your point.

Choose them wisely, as they have to be speaking in your favour in many aspects. A great example can
make you win debates, as the audience identifies with your arguments. If, on the other hand, you
choose an unsuited illustration, your opponent can win against you in a debate, not by attacking your
point directly, but by simply turning your own example against you.

There have been 140 accused and convicted people released from death row (according to the Death
Penalty Information Center) in 26 states of the US since 1973. This shows that courts can many times not
prove beyond any doubt the guilt of an accused person.
As these are only the few cases which have been discovered on time, we can only guess how many
innocent people have been executed, without having found evidence proving their innocence, before
their execution.
False accusations will always be found in a probabilistic court system, but the deaths of innocents does
not have to be a part of it.

It may sound (almost too) simple, to just justify every claim you make, but trust me, the ones who are
better at doing it than others win debating world championships.

As a training, start by trying to explain (seemingly) obvious claims like"Democracy is good", "Drugs are
bad", "Human dignity is important" and you will soon find that specially the most obvious claims are
very difficult to explain.

When you are done with that, go through the arguments you made and find claims in them, which have
to be explained again (like the ones I used, e.g.: "the state should never kill innocent people if it can be
avoided", "False accusations will always be found in a probabilistic court system",...).

You can already guess that your arguments will build a tree of explanations, which contain claims, which
should be explained, using claims..... This is an infinite process. Following it to a certain level of analysis
gives your arguments depth.

So every time you feel like you've already explained everything, just think of a 5-year-old child, which
would keep asking you: "why?".
State:

My honourable opponent suggests that the death penalty is required as a deterrent for those who might
consider commiting the crime of murder. Of course, this is a laudable goal, and one which all citizens
support. Unfortunatly, his assertion is completely false, which he would be completely aware of if he had
done even the most cursory of research. The death penalty has no effect on the murder rate.

Explain:

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, not only is the murder rate in those states with the
death penalty higher than it is in states without the death penalty, it has been higher every single year
since 1990.

Inform:

If my honourable opponent really wanted to reduce the murder rate in states such as Louisiana,
Maryland and Missouri or any of the others in the top ten list of murder rates, then he would instead
calling for the revocation of the death penalty, as I am.

Last but not least, one other small tip: there are two magic number in all public speaking, including
debating, and those numbers are 3 and 5.

Three, because most people can remember a maximum of three things at once. If you try and tell them
more than three things, they will forget them. So don't try to tell them more things! It may sound
formulaic (heck, it isformulaic), but everything should break down to three points.

And five, because people are forgetful, and you have to tell them what you are going to say, then you
tell them the three points, and then you tell them what you just said. And if you're counting, that makes
1 + 3 + 1, which equals 5.

Let's give it a try:

One sentence: "I'm against X because it's a, b and c".

One paragraph: "X is a serious problem, and here's why. It causes a. It causes b. It causes c. And because
it causes a, b & c, it's bad"

One page: Intro para, why x is bad, introducing points a, b & c. Para 2, all about a. Para 3, all about b.
Para 4, all about c. Para 5, recap a, b & c and hit the reader over the head again.

One book: you get the point.

34 tools or tactics for being a good debater:

1. Re-framing discussions

2. Getting to the heart of the matter (the nexus question as one debate scholar is noted for saying)

3. Prioritizing (Comparison & Contrast)

4. Defining terms

5. Analogies & metaphors

6. Case studies, examples, and history (ideally multiple forms of truth are best--your argument can
reflect diverse perspectives & be multi-disciplinary)

7. Research, science, & data

8. Logical syllogisms (or more simply if-then statements)

9. Determining & assessing root causes

10. Determining & assessing risk (on both sides)

11. What constitutes proof? What constitutes the most credible type of proof?

12. What constitutes value? What are we trying to achieve? What is paramount?

13. Examining assumptions or the limits of arguments (on both sides)--think about this before your
discussion.

14. Examining opportunity cost in terms of policy but also the discussion (SWOT does this a bit)

15. Ball parking--defining the criteria where all roads lead to your position

16. Pre-empting. This is answering your opponents argument before they make it. (this can be
dangerous)

17. Framing your opponents

18. Learning & specifying what your opponent advocates

19. Creating agreements on core issues if possible (this way you narrow the discussion)

20. Brainstorming possible alternatives (what debaters often call counterplans). This is also really
important in negotiations.

21. What is your distinction or nuance? (using contrast is super-key in debate). This along with
alternatives is the way you get around saying the exact opposite of what your opponent says.

22. Know your opponents case--or the possible directions it could take.

23. Big picture. Understanding the connections (relationships & inter-relationships). This can also
be important in terms of creating your over-arching narrative or theme or framing of the
 discussion and your case for it or against it. This relates pretty directly to the nexus question &
the possible shapes it could take

24. Reflection & attention. Allow your ideas to incubate. Constantly refine (aka kaizen
improvement based on research, discussion, & feedback)

25. Clearly identify your strengths and weaknesses as well as your opponents strengths and
weaknesses.

26. Context that the debate considers (consider the whole scene--not just isolated or
abstracted). This is also a question of framing of proof and what the ultimate problem is.

27. Thinking both/and

28. Think on a continuum--not just in polar terms.

29. Even-if. Even if you win that.....we will still win that. It can serve as a form of internal
prioritization (or creating extra fire-walls).

30. "Imagine a world in which....." is a thought experiment of sorts.

31. Identify generalizations & unpack them. Do this on both sides of the issue.

32. Be clear about the constraints or limitations of your argument. This is argument 101 by Stephen
Toulmin.

33. Select the most credible for your proof & compare the relative credibility on each side. This is
persuasion 101 from Aristotle.

34. Arguably you could study logical fallacies & human biases--but there are usually just a couple
that are handy. The process of learning to identify the argument is probably more useful than
the fallacies themselves.

Here is a quick summary of the 7 most important:

1. Proof (why or reason)

2. Priorities (i.e. values & objectives)

3. Research (think creatively here. follow the footnotes that seem most important)

4. What is your distinction (or nuance)

5. Thinking through the options (brainstorming with reflection)

6. Always think of the nexus question will be--what is the end game.

7. Alternatives & counterplans (this is arguably most useful for the "negative")--but can be helpful
for answering questions raised by the negative.
The key to debate is being able to dismantle an argument piece by piece and provide a counterpoint for
the other party. I debated in college for two years and I'm not sure what style of debate you'll be doing,
but we did IPDA. (I never got much into parliamentary debate)

In IPDA, the hardest position to take the the affirmative. You have to provide legitimate evidence to
support your position. Let's say you're debating "All mothers love their children". It seems pretty clear
cut that the affirmative would win, however, in many debates the winner it not who is "right" but who
presents the best arguments.

Part of your prep should include any potential arguments against your position. For example, when
prepping as the affirmative to the topic above, prepare yourself for the negative to present examples
like Susan Smith and Andrea Yates.

Learn how to flow! Keeping a steady flow of your points and the opposing points will help you to be
prepared when you have limited time. I once debated against someone from a school that was known
for two things: 1.) Talking very quickly and 2.) giving SO many points that the negative could hardly keep
up. It's imperative to keep a working flow as it goes along because you have limited time to present each
side.

Be as courtesy as you possibly can. I won a lot of close debates on courtesy points. I've also been a
judge and I always score pretty harshly on courtesy.

Observe good debaters.

Watch videos of good speakers and understand how they are taking care of three important things:

1.Their voice
Debaters modulate their voice to stress particular parts of their debate, which are relatively either more
significant, or provide good counterpoints against the opposite party.

"The GDP fell by one per cent in those five years of the party's rule.
The food security bill they implemented was an absolute failure."

In the above sentences, the parts underlined are supposed to be spoken louder than others, Because
they are the main points over debate, whether the party is efficient or not.
And at the parts which are italicized, the speaker has to lengthen the words to put stress, because they
suggest evidences or statistics supporting the main points.

Once a debater can know which parts are important and speak in a way such that those are heard
amplified, the debate becomes more interesting.

2.The body language

Avoid eye expressions.
Speak more with hands and neck.
Eye expressions give the debate a very sloppy touch. Don't raise your eyebrows too much while putting
up criticisms.
Instead use your hands to enforce your point and show few points, so that the energy of your points
radiates easily. Nod and shake your neck accordingly.

But, dont make signs which would make the debate look like an informal conversation.
Limit yourself to being presentable but not casual.

3.The content
Keep it clean. Don't put too many big words or literary tools in your debate.
It's an extempore, not poetry.
Speak upto the mark, don't exceed it.
The audience/co-debater has a short span of attention and lengthen it so much that they lose their
focus unable to decide what part of your debate is important.

Also, put relevant content.

Use examples to prove your point and not simply statements.
Evidences way more than philosophies.

Once you are done understanding what to focus over, practice.

Try.
Start with reading stuff. And reading it aloud then.
Then learn a few lines and speak aloud.
Modulation and body language will be improved only if you practice reading.

Then try giving yourself a topic and writing a debate on it.

One for the topic.
One against it.
Try speaking them aloud now and see if it makes sense.

Lastly, do the most important part.

Speak in front of audience.

You will suck at first but with every experience you will gain something that is more valuable than
humiliation is painful.
Confidence.

Participating will make you learn everything.

And do everything else that needs to be done on you.